Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 5994
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MILIND RAMESH PHADKE, J
RAVINDRA SINGH RAGHUVANSHI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 27847 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri D. S. Rajawat
For the Respondents: Shri Dinesh Savita, Shri Rishikesh Bohare
Cancellation of bail requires extraordinary circumstances; mere disagreement with the Trial Court's decision is insufficient for reversal.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439(2) - Cancellation of bail - Application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Trial Court - Necessity of supervening circumstances for cancellation - The Court finds no cogent reason for cancelling bail as the learned Trial Court's order was justified based on the merits of the case. (Paras 31-33)
(B) Bail - Grounds for cancellation - Factors such as interference with justice, abuse of bail, and prior criminal conduct should be considered; the Court reiterates that mere disagreement with the Trial Court's order is insufficient to cancel bail. (Paras 31-33)
Facts of the case:
An application was filed for the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent for various offenses; the applicant argued that there was improper consideration of facts.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no proof of supervening circumstances and determined no errors in granting bail.
Issues: Whether the Trial Court properly considered the material facts in granting bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for extraordinary circumstances to justify the cancellation of granted bail; mere dissatisfaction with the Trial Court’s decision does not suffice.
Result: Petition dismissed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE th ON THE 28 OF AUGUST, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 27847 of 2024 RAVINDRA SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:
Shri D. S. Rajawat - Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Dinesh Savita - PL for the respondent/State.
Shri Rishikesh Bohare - Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4.
ORDER The present application under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C . has been filed for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent no.2 by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 22.06.2025 passed in Bail Application No.458/2024.
Brief facts for disposal of the case are that an FIR bearing Crime No.382/2024 was registered against the respondent no.2 for the offence punishable under Sections 295, 457, 427 & 34 of IPC Respondents no.2 to 4 filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail vide Bail Application No.458/2024 and was granted bail by the Trial Court vide order dated
22.06.2025.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued before this Court that the learned Trial Court by impugned order had not considered certain Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU material facts and as such had erred in passing the impugned order granting anticipatory bail to the present respondent no.2 and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jayaben Vs. Tejas Kanubhai Zala and Another reported in 2022(1) Crimes 207 (SC) the order of grant of anticipatory bail to the present respondent is not sustainable and it was further argued that once it is found that the order releasing the accused on bail is unsustainable as a necessary consequence bail has to be cancelled.
Learned counsel has further argued that so far as merits of the matter are concerned the present respondent had forcefully broke the lock of Panchayat Bhawan and had broken the photo frames of gods and some famous personalities with malafide intension, but this aspect was not considered by the learned Trial Court while granting bail and respondents No.2 to 4 have again and again compelled the applicant for making compromise. Thus, it was prayed that the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the respondents no.2 to 4 be recalled.
On the other hand Shri Rishikesh Bohare, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4 by placing reliance in the matter of Deepak Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2022) 8 SCC 559 had argued that it is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances and the Court certainly has the inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances. The learned Apex Court while enumerating the instances on which bail can be cancelled, in para 33 had given illustrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled and as the Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU case of present applicant does not fall within the aforesaid parameters or the instances given by the Apex Court, the present M.Cr.C. deserves to be dismissed.
Learned counsel has further submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly allowed the application for anticipatory bail which in absence of any material should not be tinkered lightly. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the present application.
Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
After perusing the case diary as well as record, this Court finds that there is no strength in the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
The Apex Court in the matter of Deepak Yadav (supra) in para 31 to
33 has observed with regard to cancellation of bail as under:
31. This Court has reiterated in several instances that bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial. Having said
